Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Litchfield
Concerning the Use of Deadly Force by Police Officers Resulting in the Death of
Carnell Williams in Bridgeport on November 25, 2013

On Monday, November 25, 2013, four Bridgeport police officers exercised
deadly force which resulted in the death of Carnell Williams in the city of
Bridgeport.

Section
51-277a of the General Statutes provides that, whenever a peace officer in
the performance of his or her duties, uses deadly physical force upon another
person and such person dies as a result thereof, the Division of Criminal
Justice shall cause an investigation to be made and shall determine whether the
use of deadly physical force was appropriate under Section
53a-22 of the General Statutes . In accordance with these statutes, the
State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Fairfield caused such an
investigation to be conducted by the Connecticut State Police Western District
Major Crime Squad, in conjunction with the Connecticut State Police Collision
Analysis and Reconstruction Squad, the Forensic Science Laboratory of the
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, and the Office of the
State Medical Examiner.

The State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Fairfield made a request of
the Chief State’s Attorney that another office be assigned to investigate the
incident. Pursuant to Section
51-277a(b) of the General Statues, the Chief State’s Attorney designated
this State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Litchfield to assume
responsibility for the investigation on January 6, 2014.

The investigation is concluded and this report represents my findings and
legal conclusions. I wish to extend my condolences to the family and friends of
Mr. Carnell Williams on the loss of their loved one.

On Monday, November 25, 2013, the Connecticut State Police Statewide Urban
Violence Cooperative Crime Control Task Force (herein after, Task Force)
coordinated efforts with the Bridgeport Police Department to monitor and conduct
a controlled buy of firearms from a female then identified as “Kiki”, later
identified as Kiarra Davis. Sergeant Jason Amato, an officer with the
Bridgeport Police Department and the Task Force, had received information from
a confidential informant that a female known as “Kiki” wanted to sell two
firearms for $750.00. The investigation revealed that Ms. Davis was associated
with Samuel Dejesus, a convicted felon and inmate at Bridgeport Correctional
Center who was incarcerated in lieu of bond while charged with narcotic related
offenses. Mr. Dejesus gave instructions to Ms. Davis to sell his two firearms
for $750.00 in order to obtain the funds to post his bond. Ms. Davis and Mr.
Dejesus were also associated with a male known as “Nay Nay”, later identified as
Carnell Williams. [1]

Officer Everton Walker, an officer with the Bridgeport Police Department and
the Task Force, made contact with Ms. Davis via cell phone posing as the buyer
and made arrangements to meet with her in order to purchase the firearms. The
Task Force and members of the Bridgeport Police Department Detective Division
held a briefing regarding the operation. Sergeant Amato briefed the officers and
advised them that Ms. Davis may be reluctantly bringing along a male known as
“Nay Nay”, whom she described as “crazy”, to assist her. The actual identities
of “Kiki” and “Nay Nay” were not known to police at this time.

A total of twelve Bridgeport and Task Force officers were involved in this
operation. Members of the Task Force included Sergeant Jason Amato of the
Bridgeport Police Department, Officer Everton Walker of the Bridgeport Police
Department, Detective David Edwards of the Connecticut State Police, and
Department of Correction Officer Rene Figueroa. Bridgeport Police Detectives
included Detectives Christopher Borona, Michael Fiumidinisi, Sean Ronan, James
Borrico, and Dennis Martinez. Canine Officer Mark Martocchio of the Bridgeport
Police Department was at the scene, as well as Sergeant Robert Kenney of the
Connecticut State Police. Lieutenant Kevin Gilleran of Bridgeport Police
Department was assigned to the canine unit and responded to the scene shortly
after the incident occurred. All of the officers involved gave statements
regarding the incident and all statements are included in their entirety in Appendix A . [2]

Arrangements were made by Officer Walker to meet with Ms. Davis on November
25, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at a particular location, which was later changed by Ms.
Davis to the Burger King in the Bayview Plaza, 193 Boston Avenue, Bridgeport.
The Task Force plan was to have Officer Walker meet Ms. Davis in the parking
lot, display the cash to her, and request to see the firearms. After confirming
a firearm was in the vehicle, Officer Walker would then walk away and signal to
the other officers at which time officers would converge on the vehicle and take
the party into custody.

Task Force teams utilized unmarked cars and were arranged as follows:
Sergeant Amato, Detective Edwards, and Officer Figueroa were in a silver
Chrysler; Detectives Borrico, Martinez, and Ronan were in a black Lincoln;
Detectives Fiumidinisi and Borona were in a white Chevy Tahoe; Officer Walker
was in a silver Mercedes; and Sergeant Kenney was in a black Toyota Camry. On
stand-by in the area was Canine Officer Martocchio in a marked police cruiser.
Sergeant Amato and Detective Edwards wore identifying exterior Police gear.
Detectives Borona and Borrico wore a Police badge around their necks. Detective
Ronan wore a Police badge on his exterior coat. Detective Fiumidinisi wore a
Police badge on his belt.

Officers were pre-positioned in the Bayview Plaza prior to the scheduled
meeting. When Officer Walker entered the parking lot, he called Ms. Davis who
gave him instructions about where to park. Officer Walker complied and waited
for further instruction. During this time, another car in the parking lot with
several males inside was identified as possibly being associated with Ms.
Davis. After waiting for an extended period of time, Officer Walker made several
attempts to contact Ms. Davis but she did not respond. Eventually, Ms. Davis
sent Officer Walker a text instructing him to turn off his headlights and
Officer Walker complied. Officer Walker then called Ms. Davis and told her he
was leaving because he did not believe she was going to meet him. Ms. Davis
told Officer Walker that she was inside Burger King. The officers who had a
view inside Burger King did not see anyone matching her description inside.
Officer Walker began to drive away and Ms. Davis called him and instructed him
where to park. Officer Walker followed her instructions. Ms. Davis then called
Officer Walker again and told him to turn off his headlights. Officer Walker
told Ms. Davis he was leaving because he was not comfortable. At this point, Ms.
Davis disclosed her actual location and vehicle to Officer Walker. Ms. Davis
originally told officers that she would be driving a black Honda, however she
was actually operating a gold Nissan Altima. Several officers stated they were
concerned that Ms. Davis’ actions were putting Officer Walker in danger, as she
appeared to be stalling the buy, concealing her identity, and concealing her
location.

Upon instruction from Ms. Davis, Officer Walker approached the passenger side
of the vehicle. The passenger window was rolled down about halfway and Officer
Walker could communicate with the parties inside. Ms. Davis was the driver and
the male passenger was later identified as Carnell Williams. There was a
colloquy at the car and Ms. Davis told Officer Walker that the passenger was her
protection. Mr. Williams brought a very large revolver type weapon up to about
the height of the dashboard and he held the revolver by the handle with the
muzzle pointing down. Officer Walker stated that he could see the rear of the
cylinder and noticed that there were bullets inside the weapon. Based on his
observations, Officer Walker believed the firearm was loaded. Officer Walker
moved away from the vehicle and gave the predetermined signal to the Task Force
members watching, indicating that a firearm was present in the vehicle.

At that point, unmarked police vehicles moved into positions in an attempt to
prevent the parties from fleeing. Officers got out of their vehicles with their
guns drawn and approached the vehicle, identifying themselves as police officers
in loud voices. According to Officer Walker’s statement, he yelled to the
officers that it was the passenger that had the gun and it was loaded. Detective
Borona heard officers yelling “GUN GUN GUN”. Detective Borrico heard Officer
Walker yell “GUN”. Detective Ronan heard Officer Walker yell “HE HAS A GUN IN
HIS HAND”. Officers at the passenger side of the vehicle yelled that the
passenger had a gun in his hands. Multiple commands were given for Mr. Williams
to show his hands and drop his weapon. He did not comply. The parties were also
ordered to shut off the car and open the door. They did not comply with this
command either. Detective Borrico attempted to open the passenger door but it
was locked and the window was up. Detective Borrico then unsuccessfully
attempted to break the window with his handgun.

During this time, Officer Walker and Detectives Borrico, Ronan, and Borona
saw a great deal of movement within the vehicle and the vehicle appeared to be
rocking slightly. Mr. Williams was observed to be moving frantically in the
interior and appeared animated within the vehicle, twisting his body around in
the passenger seat to look in all different directions. Detective Borrico
observed the silhouette of Mr. Williams holding a very large handgun, waving it
as he held it above his shoulders and pointing it in the direction of
Detectives Borrico, Ronan, and Borona as if he was looking to take a shot in an
effort to escape from the scene. Detective Borona saw Mr. Williams moving and
looking around within the vehicle with a large revolver in his hand. Detective
Ronan observed Mr. Williams holding a large handgun in his hand that was being
held above his shoulders and saw him look backwards over his left shoulder in
the direction of Officer Walker. Detective Ronan then saw Mr. Williams turn
clockwise to Detectives Borona, Borrico, and Ronan and level the gun in their
direction. Multiple officers described hearing a shot fired followed by a series
of shots. Officers did not know if it was Mr. Williams or officers firing. The
subsequent investigation revealed that police officers fired the initial shots
and following shots. Officer Walker stated that he heard a gunshot and
simultaneously Detective Borrico appeared to disappear from his sight. Officer
Walker believed Detective Borrico had been shot. Officer Walker and Detectives
Borona, Borrico, and Ronan fired multiple shots at the vehicle.

The vehicle then moved forward through the parking lot at a high rate of
speed. The vehicle ultimately got hung up on a curb in the same parking lot and
came to a stop. Sergeant Kenney stated approximately ten seconds elapsed from
the time he exited his vehicle as he heard officers yelling “Police” until the
vehicle ultimately came to rest.

The parties got out of the vehicle. Mr. Williams attempted to run, then fell
to the ground. When Canine Officer Martocchio saw Mr. Williams begin to flee, he
released the canine to apprehend him. Mr. Williams was moving and twisting his
upper body on the ground and his hands were beneath him and not visible.
Detective Borona ordered Mr. Williams to show his hands numerous times, however
he did not comply and continued to move on the ground with his hands beneath
him. At this time, Detective Borona believed he was without cover and without
any officers to assist him and feared Mr. Williams still had his weapon and was
attempting to retrieve it to use it. Detective Borona discharged his firearm in
the direction of Mr. Williams approximately twenty feet away. The police canine
then made an apprehension of Mr. Williams. After the canine was called off, Mr.
Williams still refused to remove his hands from his waist area in order to allow
handcuffs to be placed on him. Ultimately, Mr. Williams was handcuffed and
transported to Bridgeport Hospital where he later expired.

The driver, Ms. Davis, sustained a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to her
face at some time while she was still in the vehicle. Mr. Williams sustained
several gunshot wounds, one of which caused his demise.

A civilian, Edward Vari of Boston Avenue, Bridgeport, provided a sworn
written statement. He stated that he was exiting the Burger King Restaurant
located on Boston Avenue in Bridgeport on November 25, 2013 in the early evening
hours when he observed approximately six officers with their guns drawn in the
direction of a tan car. Mr. Vari stated that there were three officers on the
driver’s side and three on the passenger side. He recognized their clothing to
be identifiable with Bridgeport Police Officers. He heard the officers
identifying themselves as police and ordering the parties out of the car. Mr.
Vari saw the driver’s side window lower and he heard a loud bang, then heard
numerous other bangs and stated the gunfire happened very fast. Mr. Vari stated
the tan vehicle accelerated and appeared as though it was attempting to exit
the parking lot but stopped after striking the handicap sign. Mr. Vari observed
officers run up to the vehicle and open the driver’s door and the passenger’s
door. A few officers assisted the driver out of the vehicle and placed the
driver face up on the pavement. Mr. Vari noted the officers assisted the driver
into a seated position and used handcuffs. Mr. Vari stated that the driver was
male and was yelling that he was hurt and yelled for an ambulance. [3] Simultaneously, the other officers were tending
to the passenger, however, Mr. Vari could not see the passenger from where he
was standing. The officers stayed with the driver and were tending to him until
the ambulance arrived.

Subsequent to the event, members of the Western District Major Crime Squad
conducted an investigation including a canvass of the Bayview Shopping Plaza.
Mr. Vari was found to be the only civilian witness with relevant information.

This State’s Attorney’s office reviewed all radio transmissions between the
officers before and after the incident and found them consistent with the
officers’ statements.

Detectives obtained surveillance videos from Price Rite, Chase Bank, United
Check Cashing, and Burger King. No other businesses were found to have
surveillance cameras covering the location of the incident. The video from
Price Rite was of no evidentiary value due to the distance from the incident
and lighting of the scene. The video from Chase Bank did not show the location
of the incident and therefore was of no evidentiary value. The video from
United Check Cashing was aimed at the main door and vestibule, however a
portion of the exterior sidewalk and a portion of the parking lot could be
observed through the glass doorway. The video captured a portion of a
tan-colored vehicle, later identified to be operated by Kiarra Davis, drive
quickly through the parking lot, followed seconds later by a marked Bridgeport
Police cruiser, later identified to be operated by Officer Martocchio. The
surveillance video from Burger King revealed a portion of the incident was
within the frame of the video in the peripheral corner of the screen. Although
not all of the scene was captured on video, the portion that was available was
consistent with several officers’ statements regarding the location of the
vehicles and officers’ movements throughout the incident. The video also offered
an independent view of the length of time of the incident, as well as the high
rate of speed at which the vehicle drove away from the officers through the
parking lot. The video revealed that approximately 28 seconds elapsed between
the time an officer exited the white Chevy Tahoe that officers had driven in
front of the Nissan Altima to the time the Nissan Altima began moving forward.
A total of approximately 33 seconds elapsed between the time that officer exited
the white Chevy Tahoe and the time at which the vehicle drove out of the frame
of the surveillance video. This evidence was consistent with officers’
statements.

The Western District Major Crime detectives seized the following items as
evidence: a black nylon type backpack located on the front passenger compartment
floorboard of the vehicle; an unloaded revolver (Ruger .357 Magnum revolver
GP100 Serial Number 170-07050) located on top of the backpack; [4] another unloaded revolver (Smith & Wesson
.38 Special revolver CTG Serial Number D799973) located inside the backpack;
five copper colored cartridges stamped “Winchester 38 SPL” located inside the
backpack; and one copper colored cartridge stamped “Federal 357 Magnum” located
inside the backpack. The Division of Scientific Services examined the firearms
and known samples of Mr. Williams’ DNA. The results indicated mixed DNA on the
firearms. Mr. Williams was identified as being a source of DNA on the handle
grip area of both firearms, and the cylinder and cylinder latch release area of
the .357 Magnum revolver. Both firearms were found to be operational.

Investigators examined the duty weapons that were fired in this incident. By
comparing total ammunition capacity for each gun plus the round in the chamber
to the rounds remaining in the gun, investigators determined the maximum
possible number of rounds fired by each gun. The maximum possible rounds fired
by the officers were as follows: two rounds by Officer Walker’s gun (Smith &
Wesson .45); six rounds by Detective Ronan’s gun (Smith & Wesson .45); eight
rounds by Detective Borona’s gun (Smith & Wesson .45); and nine rounds by
Detective Borrico’s gun (Springfield Armory .45). The maximum possible number of
rounds that could have been fired was 25 rounds. Detectives recovered 24 shell
casings from the scene.

Detectives from the Western District Major Crime Squad interviewed Ms. Davis
on November 25, 2013 at approximately 9:40 p.m. at St. Vincent’s Hospital
Emergency Room in Bridgeport. The interview was audio recorded. When questioned
regarding the incident, Ms. Davis stated she “was in the wrong place at the
wrong time”. Ms. Davis stated she and her male friend “Nay Nay”, were in a
parking space in the Burger King parking lot on Boston Ave in Bridgeport at
about 6:30 p.m. that evening. Ms. Davis was driving her gold Nissan Altima and
“Nay Nay” was in the front passenger seat. She saw a white van drive up and
multiple police officers exit the van. Although she did not remember the
officers to be in uniform, she recognized them to be “cops”. Ms. Davis stated
she stepped on the gas when the rear of her car was bumped but she was not
trying to “run”. The officers then fired at her car. Ms. Davis stated she did
not fire a gun and she did not have a gun in her hand. Ms. Davis believed the
situation to be a set-up by someone other than the police. She stated “at the
end of the day it all falls on me” and she has to “own this”. When questioned
about the reason she and “Nay Nay” were at Burger King that evening, Ms. Davis
stated she did not want to talk about that. When asked if there was a firearm in
her car, Ms. Davis stated she did not want to talk about that. Ms. Davis did not
elaborate on why she had to “own this”.

After her release from the hospital, Ms. Davis instructed the police to
contact her attorney. The Connecticut State Police made several unsuccessful
attempts through her attorney to arrange an interview with Ms. Davis. Ultimately
this State’s Attorney’s Office intervened. This State’s Attorney extended an
offer of use immunity to Ms. Davis through her attorney. Nevertheless, Ms. Davis
declined to be interviewed further.

Both Kiarra Davis and Samuel Dejesus were arrested and prosecuted for their
involvement in the November 25, 2013 gun sale. The cases were prosecuted in the
Judicial District of Fairfield independently of this office.

On December 18, 2014, in the Judicial District of Fairfield, Ms. Davis
entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to Attempt to Commit Illegal Transfer of a
Pistol or Revolver in violation of Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) Section
29-33; Illegal Possession of Weapons in a Motor Vehicle in violation of C.G.S.
Section 29-38; Attempt to Commit Firearms Trafficking in violation of C.G.S.
Section 53-202aa, and Attempt to Commit

Assault on a Police Officer in violation of C.G.S. Section 53a-167c. Ms.
Davis was sentenced on February 27, 2015 to fifteen years execution suspended
after five years incarceration, followed by five years of probation.

On January 28, 2015, in the Judicial District of Fairfield, Mr. Dejesus
pleaded guilty to Attempt to Commit Illegal Transfer of a Pistol or Revolver in
violation of C.G.S. Section 29-33, Attempt to Commit Firearms Trafficking in
violation of C.G.S. Section 53-202aa, and Conspiracy to Commit Illegal Transfer
of a Pistol or Revolver in violation of C.G.S. Section 29-33. Mr. Dejesus was
sentenced on March 27, 2015 to fifteen years execution suspended after seven
years incarceration, followed by five years of probation.

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. James Gill conducted a post-mortem exam of Carnell
Williams. Dr. Gill documented five gunshot wounds. One perforating gunshot wound
is described as a wound to the trunk, the bullet entering the mid back,
perforating the right lung and exiting through the chest. This wound is reported
as the cause of death. Another perforating gunshot wound is described as the
bullet entering the left lower back and exiting the left shoulder. This bullet
did not enter the thoracic cavity. The report states this wound did not cause
vital injury. The autopsy report also documents a penetrating gunshot wound of
the right shoulder, a perforating gunshot wound of the upper right arm which
did not cause vital injury, and a penetrating gunshot wound of the right hand
which did not cause vital injury.

Bite marks consistent with a dog were noted on the decedent’s right leg.

A blood sample drawn from Mr. Williams during the autopsy was analyzed and
revealed Delta-9 THC (marijuana) at 2.7 ng/ml.

The cause of death was listed by Dr. Gill as gunshot wound of trunk. The
manner of death was listed as homicide (shot by police).

The Western District Major Crime Squad examined the vehicle and completed a
Bloodstain Pattern Analysis report. Detectives identified two connected
bloodstain saturation patterns on the forward edge of the left rear passenger
seat of the vehicle. A visual inspection of those areas revealed a translucent
mucous like substance within the patterns. In this area, detectives also
identified blood consistent with expirated patterns which are attributed to
blood expirated from an airway. A portion of this area was sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory of the Connecticut Division of Scientific Services for
examination. The forensic biologist who analyzed the sample documented that the
sample gave a positive result for human blood. The sample also gave a positive
result for the presence of amylase, a component of saliva. A forensic
criminalist from the laboratory analyzed the sample and a known blood sample of
Mr. Williams for DNA comparison. The results were consistent with Mr. Williams
being the source of the DNA profile of the sample.

Detectives also identified bloodstain patterns on the interior portion of the
front passenger door, as well as drip patterns on the asphalt pavement adjacent
to the right front quarter panel and front passenger door of the vehicle at its
final rest position.

The Bloodstain Pattern Analysis report indicated bloodstains on the dashboard
near the glove box in the front passenger compartment of the vehicle contained
several small, circular voids that appeared consistent with bubble rings which
result from air in the blood. Bloodstains containing bubble rings were also
identified on the transmission console and emergency brake handle in the
vehicle. Additionally, in the interior portion of the front passenger
compartment on the passenger door panel, detectives identified bloodstain
patterns most consistent with expirated blood, which result from blood forced by
airflow out of the nose, mouth or a wound.

This State’s Attorney’s Office reviewed the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
report submitted by the Western District Major Crime Squad and agrees with its
conclusion that the forensic evidence inside the vehicle is consistent with an
airway injury. The report of the Chief Medical Examiner describes one wound
affecting Mr. Williams’ airway. That perforating gunshot wound is described as
a bullet entering the mid back, perforating the right lung and exiting through
the chest. This is the wound identified as causing the demise of Mr. Williams.
A reasonable inference is that this lung injury is the only injury that would
result in blood and amylase substance attributed to Mr. Williams and expirated
blood from an airway. Furthermore, bloodstain patterns located on the inside of
the front passenger side door and on the asphalt adjacent to the front
passenger door indicate that Mr. Williams was injured while he was inside the
vehicle.

The Forensic Science Laboratory also examined all 20 metal projectiles
recovered from the incident. Of those 20 projectiles, 11 were further examined
for possible DNA evidence. The extracted DNA from the projectiles were compared
to known samples of Mr. Williams’ DNA. The results were consistent with Mr.
Williams being the source of the DNA on four of the projectiles. Two of those
four projectiles were recovered from penetrating wounds of the decedent. One
projectile was located northwest of the vehicle’s passenger side front tire.
The other projectile was located outside the passenger side of the vehicle in a
pile of clothing that was cut from Mr. Williams during medical attention. The
fatal wound is a result of a perforating bullet, however the forensic evidence
does not definitively identify which bullet caused that wound, therefore, it is
not able to be determined which officer fired the fatal shot.

Section
53a-22(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes permits a police officer to
use deadly physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such
to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from the use or imminent use
of deadly physical force. The test to determine reasonableness is both
subjective and objective. First, the officer must believe that the use of deadly
force is necessary to defend himself or another from the imminent use of deadly
physical force. Second, the belief must be objectively reasonable. State v.
Smith , 73 Conn. App. 173, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 (2002). The burden is
on the state to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of self-defense
as set forth in section 53a-22. State v. Smith , supra, 73 Conn. App. at
185-86.

The test is not whether it was in fact necessary for the officer to use
deadly physical force in order to defend against the imminent use of deadly
physical force. The test is whether the officer believed it was necessary to use
deadly physical force and whether such belief was objectively reasonable, based
on the facts and circumstances known to the police officer at the time the
decision to use deadly force was made. See State v. Silveira , 198 Conn.
454 (1986), State v. Adams , 52 Conn. App. 643 (1999).

The United States Supreme Court has explained this test in a civil rights
case: “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on scene rather than with the 20/20 vision
of hindsight. . .The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance of the
fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions - in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount
of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Graham v. Connor
, 490 U.S. 386 at 387 (1989). “The appropriate inquiry is whether the
officers acted reasonably, not whether they had less intrusive alternatives
available to them.” Scott v. Henrich , 39 F.3d. 912, 915 (9 th
Cir. 1992).

In examining the number of shots necessary to end the public safety risk, the
United States Supreme Court has explained: “It stands to reason that, if police
officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to
public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
Plumhoff v. Rickard , 134 S.Ct. 2012 at 2022 (2014).

The accounts given by all of the officers involved regarding the events
surrounding the shooting of Carnell Williams are corroborated by the seized
evidence, the civilian witness statement, the surveillance videos, the radio
transmissions, the forensic analysis, the bloodstain pattern analysis, and the
postmortem examination findings.

The evidence establishes that on November 25, 2013 in the Bayview Plaza,
officers came in contact with Mr. Williams during a controlled buy of firearms
originally arranged between Ms. Davis and Officer Walker. Mr. Williams came to
the arranged meeting as protection for Ms. Davis and Ms. Davis had previously
told the officers she may be bringing a man who was crazy. Mr. Williams was
sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, holding a revolver that Officer
Walker believed to be loaded. Multiple officers observed Mr. Williams waving
the gun above his head and moving around significantly within the vehicle. Mr.
Williams refused to follow repeated police commands to open the door, show his
hands, and lower his firearm. Instead, Mr. Williams leveled the firearm in the
direction of police officers. Mr. Williams’ behavior caused a threat of lethal
harm to the safety of all of the officers involved. At this point, Officer
Walker and Detectives Ronan, Borrico and Borona resorted to the use of deadly
force. Mr. Williams sustained several gunshot wounds, one of which caused his
demise. The total time of the incident, from the time Officer Walker gave the
signal to the time the vehicle came to rest, was less than one minute. The
forensic evidence confirms that the wound resulting in the cause of death was
inflicted while Mr. Williams was inside the vehicle. When interviewed by
police, Ms. Davis refused to answer questions related to the gun sale; however,
she did indicate that she recognized the individuals who exited the van to be
police officers.

It is the conclusion of this State’s Attorney that Officer Walker and
Detectives Ronan, Borrico, and Borona believed the use of deadly physical force
was necessary to defend themselves and their fellow officers from the imminent
use of deadly physical force. It is further concluded that their belief was
objectively reasonable. Therefore, I have determined that Officer Walker and
Detectives Ronan, Borrico, and Borona were justified in their use of deadly
physical force upon Mr. Williams, and that such force was appropriate under section
53a-22(c) of the General Statutes . Accordingly, no further action will be
taken by the Division of Criminal Justice.